ArticleResearch square2026
An Automated, Contamination-Controlled VQA Benchmark for Evaluating Vision-Language Models on 3D Oncology Imaging.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to medical imaging, yet public benchmarks may reward memorization over perception: their images and questions can enter pretraining corpora, and many items remain answerable from question text alone. We present an automated, agent-driven pipeline that builds multiple-choice benchmarks directly from paired private radiology reports and three-dimensional oncology imaging. It generates two complementary question types: schema-driven items populated deterministically from established reporting frameworks, and report-derived items verified against the source text. Because the source reports are private and single-institution, the resulting questions cannot have entered any model's pretraining data, controlling instance-level contamination by construction. We applied the pipeline to four oncology cohorts (liver CT, liver MRI, lung CT and brain MRI; 2,509 cases and 33,870 questions) and evaluated five contemporary VLMs zero-shot. Accuracies ranged from 0.28 to 0.81 and no model was reliable across cohorts. Replacing the image with a blank input changed accuracy little for the highest-scoring models, and on schema-driven brain questions frontier models scored 0.17-0.19 higher on public than on matched private imaging. The benchmark thus separates image-dependent performance from question-text and dataset-familiarity effects, and the released pipeline lets institutions regenerate it on their own reports and images.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.